Dismissed

Daya Chand Karwasara v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2022SAW/133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed the appeal against a Single Judge's order which rejected the appellant's writ petition. The court held that the single judge rightly refused to relax the condition requiring scrutiny of the final application form as per the advertisement rules.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order quashing the eligibility for last date of application was upheld.

Daya Chand Karwasara Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 133/2022

¶3

Daya Chand Karwasara S/o Richh Pal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Vpo Birania, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Varsha Bissa For Respondent(s) : ---

¶11

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

09/05/2022

Heard.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13872/2021, whereby, the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the contention of the appellant-writ petitioner that the eligibility of the applicant ought to have been considered with reference to the applications other than the last application form.

¶16

Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the specific terms and conditions incorporated in the advertisement

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[SAW-133/2022]

¶19

and held that as per the advertisement, while assessing the eligibility of a candidate, the last application has to be considered. This condition was never challenged by the appellant. It is only when the application form of the appellant-writ petitioner was rejected after scrutiny on the basis of the last application submitted by him, he challenged the action of rejecting his application form.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before this Court to relax the condition by submitting that it was a human error committed while submitting the application form. It is also argued that even though the relevant Clause of the advertisement requires scrutiny of the declaration made in the last application form for considering eligibility, if that is done, the applicant will lose for all times to come.

¶21

We are afraid, sitting in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we cannot interfere with the order, as the order does not suffers from any illegality. The terms of the advertisement, known to all, were clear that when more than one application form is submitted, the last application form will be treated as the final one and on that basis alone, the scrutiny would be made. Admittedly, more than one application was made and his last application was considered.

¶22

If the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellantwrit petitioner were to be accepted, it will completely change the process of selection and there may be hundreds or thousands of such persons who may have submitted more than one application form and their candidature was rejected or accepted on the basis of declaration given in the last application form.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[SAW-133/2022]

¶25

In sum and substance, relief of mandamus has been sought in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which cannot be allowed. Similar stipulation was not there in the case of Kavita Choudhary V/s The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1700/2017 decided on 01.11.2017), which has been relied upon. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the case of Kavita Choudhary (supra).

¶26

Therefore, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶27

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶28

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

¶29

8-jayesh/-

Daya Chand Karwasara v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Chand Karwasara v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramavtar Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Tailor Vs State of Raj.

Rajendra Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh Rajawat Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Dinesh Rawat

Omprakash Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan